Wealth Inequality: Going from bad to (net) worth

Yesterday, Statistics Canada released its 2012 wealth survey (Survey of Financial Security). Two previous wealth surveys were published in 2005 and 1999 with a similar methodology.

We often talk about income inequality, which examines what middle class and rich Canadians make in a year. However, wealth inequality examines middle class and rich Canadians’ net worth, including their house, RRSPs, savings, car, etc. If income inequality—where the top 20% of families get 43% of the income— is concerning, then wealth inequality should be downright shocking. The top 20% of families in Canada own 67% of all net wealth (although this is down slightly from the high of 69% of all wealth in 2005).

Put another way, the top 20% of families have twice as much wealth as the bottom 80% of families combined. Even if the bottom 80% of families doubled their net worth tomorrow, they still wouldn’t have as much as the top 20% presently do.

Inequality is not only about the wealthy, it’s also about the middle class. Looking at the middle 20% of families, while they represent 20% of the population, they only receive 15% of all income. However, the middle 20% of families only have 8% of all net wealth and this has remained fairly constant since 1999.

All the above examines the share of net worth, not its dollar value change over time. In fact, net wealth has increased for all quintiles since 1999.  For instance, middle class net wealth has increased by almost 80% since 1999 in inflation-adjusted terms. The upper class has increased their net worth by a little over 80% since 1999. That seems fairly equal until you realize that the wealth they were starting from in 1999 was already incredibly unequal: 80% of $760,000 is a lot more than 80% of $137,000 (the 1999 median wealth values for the upper and middle classes, respectively).

In fact, of every new dollar of Canadian wealth created since 1999, $0.66 went to the richest, $0.23 went to the upper middle class and the bottom 60% fought it out for the remaining dime.

The reasons why wealth increased for the middle class in contrast to the rich are also quite different. If we look at the distribution of debt instead of net wealth, we find that the middle class actually holds the most debt of any quintile, certainly more than the poor, but interestingly also more than the rich.  The middle class has managed to increase their net wealth in large part due to increased leveraging, not asset price appreciation. The richest families have less debt and substantially more assets. Their increased wealth is largely due to asset accumulation, not leveraging.

Upon examination of the types of debt for the middle class, we find 80% of it comes from mortgage debt. In fact, the majority of the middle class’ assets are also related to real estate (which is not the case for the upper class). For the middle class, increased net wealth has been related to much more expensive houses being purchased with much larger mortgages. That is to say, the middle class is leveraging up in order to keep up (with the Jones’).

As the Americans learned, leveraging up is only a successful strategy if housing prices continue to appreciate. When a house goes down in value, the mortgage payments do not. Asset prices fluctuate while debt levels do not, which is why over-leveraging is generally a bad idea, particularly when mortgage rates in Canada are at all time lows.

David Macdonald is a Senior Economist with the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives. You can follow him on Twitter @DavidMacCdn.


  1. Not just leveraging. It’s probably also simply that in Canada our real estate bubble has not yet burst. Housing prices have continued to rise fairly sharply through most of the period you talk about, not so? So any homeowner would see their wealth “rise” without actually getting a thing, simply from the assessment of their home’s value going up. This price rise may camouflage a situation where in reality the top 20% have continued to pull away.

    By the same token, if values suddenly fell, even if this had no hard economic downsides (no rash of foreclosures etc), the middle class would suddenly look as if they had far less wealth.

    On the other hand, the value of many of the 1%’s investments is also fragile; another financial crash could see a lot of paper wealth disappear . . .

  2. I used to be the one complaining about the rich and then I realized that I wasn’t part of that group because I wasn’t working hard enough.

    I was blaming other people and feeling sorry for myself. If you’re in the bottom 20%, you’ll figure it out someday.

  3. Hilarious, TS! I always appreciate when people use sarcasm to point out inherent flaws in the “up by their bootstraps”, “self-made man”, “good things come to those who work 60 hours a week at minimum wage so quit your bellyaching” line of debate. Thanks for the giggles.

Join the Discussion

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Before commenting, please read our Comment Policy